Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2011 17:12:10 +0200 From: Jaakko Heinonen <jh@FreeBSD.org> To: Craig Rodrigues <rodrigc@crodrigues.org> Cc: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: [patch] nmount ro, rw and negated option handling Message-ID: <20110119151210.GA2182@a91-153-123-205.elisa-laajakaista.fi> In-Reply-To: <20110119083407.GA51372@crodrigues.org> References: <20110114122454.GA4805@jh> <20110119083407.GA51372@crodrigues.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 2011-01-19, Craig Rodrigues wrote:
> I disagree with your patch and do not approve it.
>
> I prefer something simpler:
Thanks for your reply. However, your patch doesn't fix the bug(s) I
tried to resolve. See below.
> ZFS can be changed to check for "rw" or "noro".
It's possible but I don't like to support both "rw" and "noro". That
makes the file system code unnecessary prone for bugs when someone
forgets to test for both options.
> > 1. Have mountd(8) running.
> > 2. # mdconfig -a -t vnode -f ufsimg
> > 3. # mount -o ro,rw /dev/md0 /mnt
With your patch[1] after the third step the mount point has both "ro"
and and "noro" active but the MNT_RDONLY flag is not set. Again, you
will eventually get the "ffs_sync: rofs mod" (or similar) panic because
the "ro" option is active during remount.
Also, I didn't verify but I doubt that your patch will fix the problem
described in PR kern/150206.
[1] I had to comment vfs_mount.c line 622 "has_noro = 1;" and remove
the noro_opt declaration to be able to compile kernel with your
patch applied.
--
Jaakko
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20110119151210.GA2182>